Moving the needle: overcoming systemic inertia to foster collective sustainability agency in organizations

of dire ecological threats? We examine four systemic barriers behind collective inertia and argue that collective sustainability agency is necessary to overcome systemic inertia. Collective sustainability agency is the organizational capacity through which members transform individual sustainability concerns and responsibilities into coordinated collective influence over the practices, priorities, and structures that shape organizational sustainability outcomes. Unlike collective efficacy or organizational climate, which centers on shared beliefs about a group's capability, collective sustainability agency emphasizes the mobilization and exercise of that capability. Building on Wong et al.'s (2025) call to recognize employees as collective agents of systemic sustainability change, this perspective focuses on how organizations transform dispersed individual attitudes into shared responsibility, coordinated action, and collective influence capable of challenging organizational inertia.Environmental sustainability is defined as practices that minimize ecological harm, conserve natural resources, and support long-term ecological balance (Ones & Dilchert, 2012). While employees may personally endorse these principles, they often engage in environmentally harmful practices at work. This discrepancy occurs because organizational structures, incentives, leadership, and daily job demands shape human behavior far more powerfully than personal attitudes alone. Addressing the "attitude-behavior gap" requires more than changing individual minds-it demands the deliberate design of organizational systems that actively motivate, support, and mobilize sustainable choices (Kühner et al., 2025).Most organizations operate with economic success as their central priority. This creates a "growth paradox," where environmental sustainability and economic expansion are viewed as diametrically opposed tradeoffs (Edwards, 2021). In many corporate cultures, taking a sustainable stance is incorrectly equated with stagnation rather than progress (Amel et al., 2026).Research examining the economic-environmental relationship has yielded nuanced patterns of results. Fernandes et al. (2021) found that sustainability innovations and green technology transfers supported economic growth without harming financial performance. Meta-analytic results also showed a consistent, positive, bidirectional relationship between sustainability and organizational profit (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2013). Integrating sustainability into strategic planning was associated with higher stock prices, lower risks, and fewer unplanned environmental cleanup costs. Organizational longevity also positively correlated with proactive environmental investments (Ones et al., 2026). This relationship, however, has several moderators. Costa and Opare (2025) found that organizations with higher production volumes, older equipment and processes, and aggressive dividend payouts generated significantly higher levels of toxic chemical releases than those with lower production volumes, newer equipment and processes, and less aggressive payouts. Rahi et al. (2024) identified other contextual moderators in that financial return on green initiatives was strengthened when organizations had gender-diverse boards, tied executive compensation to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics, possessed ample slack resources, and answered to sustainability-minded investors. A negative relationship was found for companies, markets, and investors operating within highly capitalist frameworks--such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Ireland that "historically undervalued or ignored green practices" (p. 812) while prioritizing short-term financial returns.When looking at the country level, Teixeira et al. (2025) compared the world's 10 most sustainable and 10 least sustainable countries, arguing that macroeconomic growth is a primary driver for environmental compliance. They suggested companies become more capable of implementing green practices upon acquiring financial and institutional resources. Contradicting this argument, however, is evidence that high-income nations contribute disproportionately to climate extremes (Schöngart et al., 2025), using six times more resources and generating ten times the per capita climate impact than low-income nations (UNEP, 2024). In short, macrostructural factors shape the sustainability-profit relationship, constraining the impact of individual action and creating pressures that can undermine the perceived value of sustainability and discourage organizations from pursuing green strategies.Many capitalist economies adopt a short-term orientation, prioritizing immediate financial returns while discounting future risks and liabilities. Because markets reward quarterly earnings improvements, executives work to keep immediate operational costs low. This induces a bias where the visible, upfront cost of sustainability initiatives loom larger than the abstract, back-end cost of future environmental degradation. This behavior aligns closely with prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Organizational leadership places a disproportionate psychological value on avoiding immediate losses (the outof-pocket expenses of green investments) while discounting delayed gains and future penalties. Because the long-term consequences of environmental neglect are often delayed, distributed, or uncertain, the immediate cost of prevention feels like a loss.Furthermore, even when short-term decisions result in eventual ecological disaster, the organization itself rarely bears the full financial burden. The costs of degraded water tables, polluted land, and declining public health are externalized onto the public. This moral hazard fosters an organizational mindset of grabbing immediate payoffs under the assumption that the current leadership will no longer be around when the environmental bill comes due. While institutions gravitate toward crisis management and instant gratification, long-term operational horizons are ultimately more effective.Sustainability remains a low corporate priority due to diffused responsibility and a lack of accountability. Because the degradation of our climate is a collective, slow-moving crisis, no single entity shoulders the blame. Future remedial costs are spread across taxpayers, governments, local communities, and future generations. This systemic inertia is further compounded by socio-political rhetoric. Framing sustainability through an ideological lens (e.g., dismissing climate science as a hoax) or characterizing environmental protections as inherently onerous and economically destructive supports justifying the status quo.Organizations must navigate domestic and international governmental regulations. Proactive companies integrate sustainability into their overarching corporate strategy to stay ahead of the legislative curve. Conversely, adopting a purely reactive stance results in defensive, "quick-fix" adjustments that require expensive retooling and structural redesigns. Furthermore, basic compliance often misses the competitive advantages-such as reduced energy, water, and material costs-offered by strategic, sustainable innovation.External regulations can be a risky path. In an experimental simulation, Baxter and Pelletier (2020) observed that introducing regulatory sanctions increased sustainable behaviors only while those sanctions were actively enforced. Once the threat of penalties was removed, sustainable behaviors plummeted. This aligns directly with self-determination theory: actions driven solely by compliance cease when the external threat disappears, while actions driven by internal values become self-sustaining. Sustainability implementation, however, presents organizations with complex and competing demands. Strategies for advancing sustainability can involve substantial implementation costs, uncertain financial returns, competing stakeholder pressures, and political and regulatory constraints. These challenges are very real and can reinforce organizational inertia, particularly when short-term financial priorities compete with longer-term environmental goals. Navigating these tensions requires more than individual commitment to sustainability; it requires an organizational architecture that bridges individual will for sustainability with the collective capacity to make it happen. Such an architecture can transform dispersed sustainability concerns into coordinated action, enabling organizations to overcome systemic barriers and embed sustainability within the structures and practices that guide organizational decision making.Similar to Wong, et al (2026), we propose that to overcome collective inaction, organizations must build collective agency through actively initiating change, challenging institutional norms, and transforming the systemic structures that govern them. Cultivating collective agency requires an overhaul of an organization's culture, in particular its underlying norms and assumptions.According to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;2010), subjective norms are primary determinants of individual behavioral choices. Within a corporate culture, these norms manifest in two ways:• Normative Beliefs: Signaling what an organization values most-its core priorities and idealized behaviors. These beliefs stem from deeply embedded, unexamined assumptions that implicitly drive employee actions without conscious awareness. • Motivation to Comply: Reflecting an employee's evaluation of the positive and negative outcomes resulting from their compliance.Social norms powerfully dictate accepted workplace behavior. Individual employees find it exceedingly difficult to defy an established corporate culture. A lone worker championing an environmental agenda can feel isolated and fear a substantial professional cost as superiors and peers may view time and energy spent on green initiatives as wasted or counter to the organization's capitalist motives (Amel et al., 2023). Leaders are statistically more likely to empower conformist employees who reinforce traditional values rather than those perceived as "rocking the boat" (Smith et al., 2026).We argue that to mobilize collective sustainability agency, organizations must develop and encourage norms that embed sustainability in their culture through planned change, executive accountability, GHRM, and job design (Figure 1).Shifting an organization's core trajectory relies heavily on collective human effort. This transition cannot be derivative; it must be a radical, macro-level transformation, as minor adjustments can easily be bypassed or ignored.Undertaking comprehensive culture change is difficult, as individuals naturally resist disruption in favor of the status quo. Lewin's (1951) three-stage model of planned change provides a framework to navigate this friction. The first stage, unfreezing, calls for the disruption of automated, habitual routines forcing employees out of "autopilot." The next stage implements new sustainable processes and systems. Finally, the last stage, refreezing, solidifies and integrates the changes into daily operations and corporate identity mitigating resistance. Macrostructural shifts maximize ecological returns (IPCC, 2023). For example, while an individual can consciously choose to flip off a light switch, an organization that installs motion-sensor lighting across all facilities scales that positive behavior a thousand-fold.To achieve radical cultural change, we suggest that organizations target two foundational value shifts:• Shifting to a long-term frame of reference: Ignoring sustainability may generate temporary, upfront financial gains, but invites catastrophic long-term liabilities. The cumulative cost of environmental remediation frequently dwarfs the initial cost of prevention. A prime example is General Electric (GE), which discharged PCBs into the Hudson River from the 1940s to the 1970s. GE's long-term management costs are projected to exceed $2 billion, encompassing dredging, litigation, fines, and penaltiesalongside intangible damages like stricter regulatory oversight, eroded investor confidence, and severe brand devaluation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). • Embracing a purpose-driven transformation: Prioritizing long-term viability over quarterly performance can create conditions that may enhance organizational flexibility and resilience. Such a shift may also provide strategic advantages by encouraging innovation, strengthening long-term performance, and mitigating systemic risks (Ones et al., 2026). Organizations that neglect sustainability may face escalating operating costs due to the finite nature of natural resources-including water, clean air, rare earth minerals, energy, and arable land. Without deliberate corporate intervention to protect and replenish resources, supply chains may face disruptions and cost increases that could undermine long-term profitability. Early sustainability adopters may be uniquely positioned as leaders in emerging green markets, which represent some of the fastestgrowing sectors of the global economy (World Economic Forum, 2025).A pro-environmental culture fosters higher employee engagement, deeper institutional commitment, and greater job satisfaction (Amel et al., 2023). When an organization's norms embrace green values, even employees who were initially indifferent are often swept along.Employees internalize these values voluntarily, moving beyond behavioral compliance to true psychological commitment.A corporate reputation rooted in genuine environmental stewardship acts as a powerful magnet for stakeholders. Meta-analytic evidence confirms that modern consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainably produced goods (Tully & Winer, 2014). In contrast, "greenwashing"providing lip service to environmental initiatives without taking genuine action (Walker & Wan, 2012)-shatters consumer trust and may result in institutional investors divesting their support.Radical systemic change must be initiated from the top. CEOs and corporate boards determine how internal resources are deployed, balancing external market pressures and regulatory demands against internal structural constraints (Ones et al., 2026). Notably, a global survey revealed that 98% of CEOs now view it as their explicit responsibility to make their organizations sustainable-a 15% increase over the preceding decade (United Nations & Accenture, 2023).This top-down alignment is critical because employee eco-initiatives are directly tied to the visible actions of their leaders (Katz et al., 2022;Zacher et al., 2024). The personal convictions of top executives establish baseline behavioral norms for the entire enterprise. When evaluating the antecedents of employee workplace behavior, research shows that a supportive green climate combined with explicit pro-environmental leadership provides the necessary psychological safety for workers to manifest their personal values. Ultimately, corporate leadership behaviors function as highly visible, observable benchmarks that increase the salience of an employee's own internal ethical standards (Zhao et al., 2026). To facilitate this clarity, leadership must establish explicit operational rules and clear behavioral choices (Oettingen & Gollwitzer, 2026), building collective sustainability efficacy across the workforce.HRM professionals are vital strategic partners in translating corporate vision into daily practice (Westerman et al., 2020). By embedding sustainability into core personnel processes, HRM drives employee behavior through how roles are defined, who is recruited, and how talent is evaluated and rewarded (Podgorodnichenko et al., 2022;Zacher et al., 2023).Schneider's Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Model (1987) suggests that the mechanism for this cultural evolution involves:• Proactively marketing the firm's green initiatives to attract candidates with matching values,• Hiring individuals whose personal ethics align with the organization's sustainability goals, • Retaining those who thrive in a green culture, while misaligned individuals exit over time.By hiring for value congruence, organizations shift employees away from reactive compliance toward intrinsic motivation (Ones et al., 2026). Rather than viewing sustainability as an external regulatory threat, workers perceive it as an opportunity for personal growth, well-being, engagement, and meaningful performance.While macro-level organizational outcomes are not directly under an individual worker's control, their immediate task behaviors are. Green job design structurally integrates environmental targets into everyday routines, establishing clear benchmarks for feedback and performance rewards.When sustainability is a built-in feature of a job description rather than an optional afterthought, it establishes clear expectations and personal accountability for ecological outcomes (Katz & Stuhlmacher, 2026).Much of the sustainability literature treats individual and structural change as separate pathways to sustainability, emphasizing either changes in individual attitudes and behaviors or changes in organizational systems. Individuals, however, often face systemic inertia that constrains their ability to challenge and transform entrenched systems. We argue that organizational structures must enable and reinforce individual sustainability attitudes for them to translate into meaningful sustainability change. Transforming individual sustainability concerns into shared responsibility enables collective sustainability agency to mobilize the capacity to overcome systemic inertia and drive meaningful organizational sustainability change. As collective agents of environmental sustainability, organizational members can challenge an economic paradigm that prioritizes short-term gains over long-term environmental health. We propose that collective sustainability agency positions organizations and their members as active stewards of environmental protection, empowering them to create the conditions for enduring environmental sustainability. By restructuring organizational cultures to foster collective sustainability agency, organizations can cultivate a shared responsibility to the planet while potentially enhancing their capacity for agility, resilience, and long-term sustainability. Achieving this transformation requires corporate leaders and stakeholders to move beyond incrementalism, embrace systemic change, and create the conditions in which sustainable behavior becomes the organizational norm.